This article says:
With these added headers, Cloudflare passes on all HTTP headers as is
from the client to the origin.
However, there doesn't appear to be a standard way to get the Host from the original request.
Is there a way to do this, either via standard options or enterprise option?
Related
I'm trying to automate a process so I want to connect to an external API, first just to log in (can't use the API Key since I'm not an admin user).
I basically copied the request the browser does when it logs in, but when doing this from Postman I get a 400 responde, with the body "Not allowed by CORS".
Is there any way through code, that I can bypass that and work with such API?
Cors means Cross-Origin Resource Sharing. Basically browsers help web servers a way to protect themselves for data change requests.
Remove Origin Header (or) replace Origin value to server hostname (in this case api.kenjo.io)
Add referer header.
With dothttp it would look like below.
POST 'https://api.kenjo.io/auth/token'
origin: 'https://www.kenjo.io'
referer: 'https://www.kenjo.io/'
Lets say I have my website named SiteA.com running on an Apache web server. I have defined the ff. below on my httpd.conf file:
Header set Access-Control-Allow-Origin "CustomBank.com"
Questions:
Does this mean only CustomBank.com can access my site (SiteA.com) directly? or does it mean only my site (SiteA.com) can access the CustomBank.com domain directly? I am confused if this setting is for inbound or outbound.
In reality I don't have any CORS requirement needed for my site, so I didn't implement the setting mentioned above, the one below shows up in my response header.
Access-Control-Allow-Origin: *
Penetration Testing team said this setting is overly permissive. Do I just need to remove it? if not what should I do?
It means javascript loaded from CustomBank.com can make requests to your site (the site whose configuration has changed) via XMLHTPRequest in the background.
Since XMLHTTPRequest will send a users existing session cookie with your site, malicious scripts could do all kinds of nefarious/misleading things on behalf of your user. That's why * is not normally a suitable fix.
The restrictions apply to other script-like invocations that are more esoteric that you can read about in the specs.
I need to set a cookie based on a response header (as opposed to a request header). The response header is set by a SOAP call to a backend - and is out of apaches control.
I've looked into SetEnvIf, but it states that it investigate request headers only. mod_rewrite's {HTTP:parm} construct also seems to apply to request headers only.
Request coming in
Response header is generated by backend
Apache investigates respond header FooBar
Apache add Set-Cookie if the respond header FooBar value matches "string"
Any ideas out there?
It looks like this can be done with mod_headers, but unfortunately only with Apache 2.4, since expressions were only added in 2.4. You would do something like:
Header set Set-Cookie "cookie-contents-here" "expr=%{resp:Content-Type} =~ m|application/pdf|"
If you can't upgrade to 2.4, you might consider putting Varnish Cache in front of your Apache install. It's a powerful HTTP processor and can easily handle modifying the response for you. You could also implement caching with it and increase the performance of your site, but it can just be used as a pass-through HTTP processor if you don't want to do that. Perhaps there's a simpler solution but that would work.
Another option could be to put a layer in between Apache and your back-end, such as a PHP script, that handles passing the call to the back-end and modifying the headers on the way back out. Probably not great for performance though; upgrading Apache or implementing Varnish Cache would be better.
If you're using a separate back-end out of Apache's control, then you might take Apache out of the loop completely and go straight from Varnish Cache to your back-end.
Hope the ideas help.
Every time I send a API request to my server I want send informations like device type and OS version (from my mobile app). My first thought is to use User Agent but I wonder if there's any benefits to use custom http header like "X-deviceType" or/and "X-osVersion" instead.
I am using the X-Device HTTP Header.
Works well for the most part, however I have noticed that some requests from behind a proxy seem to be stripping the data from that header.
I am using CloudFront to front requests to our service hosted outside of amazon. The service is protected and we expect an "Authorization" header to be passed by the applications invoking our service.
We have tried invoking our service from Cloud Front but looks like the header is getting dropped by cloud front. Hence the service rejects the request and client gets 401 forbidden response.
For some static requests, which do not need authorization, we are not getting any error and are getting proper response from CloudFront.
I have gone through CloudFront documentation and there is no specific information available on how headers are handled and hence was hoping that they will be passed as is, but looks like thats not the case. Any guidance from you folks?
The list of the headers CF drops or modifies can be found here
http://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonCloudFront/latest/DeveloperGuide/RequestAndResponseBehaviorCustomOrigin.html#RequestCustomRemovedHeaders
CloudFront does drop Authorization headers by default and will not pass it to the origin.
If you would like certain headers to be sent to the origin, you can setup a whitelist of headers under CloudFront->Behavior Settings->Forward headers. Just select the headers that you would like to be forwarded and CloudFront will do the job for you. I have tested it this way for one of our location based services and it works like a charm.
One thing that I need to verify is if the Authorization header will be included in the cache key and if its safe to do that?? That is something you might want to watch out for as well.
It makes sense CF drops the Authorization header, just imagine 2 users asking for the same object, the first one will grant access, CF will cache the object, then the second user will get the object as it was previously cached by CloudFront.
Great news are using forward headers you can forward the Authorization header to the origin, that means the object will be cached more than once as the header value is part of the cache "key"
For exmple user A GETS private/index.html
Authorization: XXXXXXXXXXXXX
The object will be cached as private/index.html + XXXXXXXXXXXXX (this is the key to cahce the object in CF)
Now when the new request from a diferent user arrives to CloudFront
GET private/index.html
Authorization: YYYYYYYYYYYY
The object will be passed to the origin as the combinaiton of private/index.html + YYYYYYYYYYYY is not in CF cache.
Then Cf will be cached 2 diferent objects with the same name (but diferent hash combinaiton name).
In addition to specifying them under the Origin Behaviour section, you can also add custom headers to your origin configuration. In the AWS documentation for CloudFront custom headers:
If the header names and values that you specify are not already present in the viewer request, CloudFront adds them. If a header is present, CloudFront overwrites the header value before forwarding the request to the origin.
The benefit of this is that you can then use an All/wildcard setting for whitelisting your headers in the behaviour section.
It sounds like you are trying to serve up dynamic content from CloudFront (at least in the sense that the content is different for authenticated vs unauthenticated users) which is not really what it is designed to do.
CloudFront is a Content Distribution Network (CDN) for caching content at distributed edge servers so that the data is served near your clients rather than hitting your server each time.
You can configure CloudFront to cache pages for a short time if it changes regularly and there are some use cases where this is worthwhile (e.g. a high volume web site where you want to "micro cache" to reduce server load) but it doesn't sound like this is the way you are trying to use it.
In the case you describe:
The user will hit CloudFront for the page.
It won't be in the cache so CloudFront will try to pull a copy from the origin server.
The origin server will reply with a 401 so CloudFront will not cache it.
Even if this worked and headers were passed back and forth in some way, there is is simply no point in using CloudFront if every page is going to hit your server anyway; you would just make the page slower because of the extra round trip to your server.